EXPLORATIONS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY 20, 37-57 (1983)

Employment in Nineteenth Century Indian Textiles*

MICHAEL J. TWOMEY
University of Michigan, Dearborn

The “de-industrialization” of India has been a topic of extensive debate

in the literature of political economy. Officials of the East India Company
warned against it in the early days of the 18th century.’ That the growth
of the Lancashire cotton mills came at the expense of Indian handicraft
production has been widely accepted, especially among certain nationalist
economic historians, led by Dutt (1956).’ A focal point in the recent
academic discussion has been Morris’s (1963) article, reprinted, along
with comments from other scholars, in the March 1968 issue of the Indiasl
Economic and Social History Review, and in Morris et al. (1969), in
which he declared “there is a strong likelihood that the traditional sector,
generally speaking, did not decline absolutely in economic significance
and therefore did not constitute a depressing element in the performance
of the nineteenth century economy. It is even possible that absolute
growth occurred, “3 Among other comments, critics painted to the weak
statistical basis of Morris’s position. One important study he did cite is
the Thorner (1962) analysis of the Indian census data of 1881 and 193 1)
* The author thanks members of the UM-Ann Arbor Economic History Seminar,
D. A. Farnie, Don Anderson, and Richard Roehl. for comments on earlier drafts.
’ See Dutt (1956), Chap. XIV. Humanitarian considerations were probably less important
to them than was the protection of their own near monopoly in the trade of Indian piece
goods.
’ A good presentation of the different subcurrents of the nationalist position is Ganguli
(1977). As another example. Maddison (1971, p. 54) comments “There is a good deal of
truth to the de-industrialization argument.” Baran (1957, p. 149) states, “(Britain’s)
commercial policy destroyed the Indian artisan and created the infamous slums of the
Indian cities . . . Its economic policy broke down whatever beginrtings there were of an
indigenous industrial development. . .” It might be noted that Baran’s treatment of the
“Roots of Backwardness” of India gives more emphasis to the “drain” of resources from
India than to de-industrialization per se. As noted by Morris (1963) and Chaudhuri (1968).
that is another thorny issue of Indian economic history.
3 Morris (1963, p. 613). Immediately above this quotation, another phrase refers specifically
to handloom weavers. We shall return to this distinction at the end of the paper. There
are many other stimulating hypotheses in Morris’s paper which we shall not consider here.

37
0014-4983/83/010037-21$03.OO/O
Copyright 0 1983 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
38 MICHAEL J. TWOMEY

which indicated no increase in the percentage of the population dependent

on agriculture.4 Surveys of 19th century Indian economic history by
Chaudhuri (1968), Kumar (1972), and most recently Robb (1981) have
emphasized the still unsettled empirical basis of this discussion.
This paper shall attempt to attach rough orders of magnitude to the
different variables important in determining the accuracy of Morris’s
statement5 The first step in this exercise is the collection and presentation
of data on Indian trade-exports and imports, of both yarn and cloth-
which is generally possible from 1790 on. The more difficult task is the
construction of time series for total production and consumption; these
are presented from 1880 on. On the basis of this data we shall distinguish
two periods of marked effects on Indian textile employment; an earlier
one due the reduction of exports, the second due to the inroads of English
textiles on production for local use. Certain average productivity ratios
permit the conversion from output changes to employment effects. With
regard to Morris’s assertion, we shall argue that there was an absolute
decline in handicraft textile employment over the century, and highlight
the period 1850-1880 as that of strongest displacement of domestic
handicrafts by British exports.
The cotton plant was first domesticated in India, whose textile trade
is so ancient that Indian cotton fabrics have been found in the tombs of
the pharaohs. For the period under consideration, we shall distinguish
five stages of Indian textile production and trade: (I), the years prior to
1830, involving a steady decline in the volume of Indian handmade exports
from a high in the 1790s; (2), 1830-1850, when exports stagnated while
the growth of imports from Britain was arguably not greater than the
growth of domestic demand due to population growth; (3), 1850-1880,
which saw accelerating textile imports, as well as the successful foundation
of the domestic manufacturing industry; (4) 1880-1913, at the end of
which imports peaked; (5) the post-1913 period, when domestic manu-
facturing dominated both imports and hand weaving.
Textile mills were attempted in India as early as 1818, but for a variety
of reasons the first successful one was established only after 1850. It is
well known that these mills did not have the benefits of significant tariff
protection, which was only to come in the 1920~.~ The story of the
evolution of the Indian spinning and weaving industries is best told by
Mehta (1953, 1954); other important sources are Gadgil (1971), Gandhi
(1930), and Govil (1950).
4 In contrast to Thorner, Bagchi (1976) found a decline in that percentage over the period
1809-1901, for the area of Bihar. Bagchi’s use of data has been severely criticized by
Vicziany (1979) and Robb (1981). We shall argue below that the period analyzed by Thorner
is inappropriately late.
’ One could quarrel with the implication that the absence of absoluk (as opposed to
relative) decline is sufficient to avoid being a depressing element.
6 On Indian tariff policies, see Rider (1970), Harnetty (1972), and Dewey (1978).
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 3

The data on Indian trade, presented in Table I, form the basis for
much of our periodization of the Indian textile experience, which un-
fortunately excludes considerations of political developments. There is
a clear turning point in 1830, when the subcontinent becomes a net
importer of cloth. The mid-century acceleration of imports was halted
by the “cotton famine” of the early 1860%but growth resumed thereafter.
In 1880 she became a net exporter of (machine spun) yarn. Cloth imports
fell after 1913, and never regained their prewar level. At the end of the
period, yarn exports were being replaced by cloth exports.
Under the East India Company, the export of cotton textiles increased
considerably, expanding from an inter-Asian trade toward the European
markets, marking its apex at the end of the 18th century,7 when the
major part of exports was sent to England for re-export onto the continent
and elsewhere. The suggestion of Table 2 is that the re-exported part of
Indian shipments to England continued to rise up into the 1790s while
the (relatively smaller) domestic English market was already falling by
then due to accelerating home production. By the turn of the century,
English goods clearly dominated the world market.
What happened thereafter to total Indian textile exports is difficult to
specify with exactitude. Some information is presented in Table 3. In
contrast to the collapse of the export market to England in the decades
after 1800, the rest of the Indian exports was not as severely damage
apparently declining slightly in volume, and by some factor less than
half in price. The price change reflects a drop in quality, because English
exports first displaced the higher part of the Indian trade, as the price
differential between mechanically spun and hand spun yarn increased
with the fineness of the yarn. On the basis of the data in Table 4, we
would conclude that real cloth prices fell in England after 1800; Parshad
(1932, p. 210) cites a report suggesting that Indian piece goods sold in
England had reached their highest sale prices in the 1780s. Table 4 aIs0
suggests that the price decreases in England due to mechanization and
techniqd improvements were aided, at least between I815 and 1845, by
the decline in the price of the raw material, due to the expansion of
American supplies. Of course, one cannot necessarily infer p&e move-
ments in India on the basis of information on English prices, because
of transport, costs, the English tariffs and other trade impediments, as
well as the breaking up of the East India Company’s trade monopoly.
Combining these considerations and the incomplete data in Tables 3 an
’ The author has not found any data for total Indian cloth exports before 1790, Nevertheless,
trade to England expanded considerably. Chaudhuri (1978, p. 548) shows average annual
exports of 442 thousand pieces in 1756-1760 (down from a high of over one million in
1727). Milburn (1813, p. 234) reports yearly trade of 874 thousand during 1771-1779, and
(p. 415) over two million during 1791-1800, after which it declined. An undetermined, but
presumed small, part of this growth was due to the displacement of trade in non-British
bands. See Arasaratnam (1980) and Chaudhuri (1974).
 TABLE 1
Indian Cotton Goods Trade, 1790-1930 (Annual Averages for Decade)
%
Yarn Cloth Yarn Cloth

Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports

(m. lb) (m. lb) Cm. yd) Cm. yd) Cm. 9 Cm. f) Cm. 0 Cm. 9

1790 ..a 5Oj (2.4)

1800 ..nz 2.2 m
1810 ..e 5 0.9 0.3’
1820 3f 26 0.3’ 1.2 1.1
1830 o.2b 7 (30)’ 60 0.3p 0.5 0.9 2.9
1840 0.6 17 26k 199 0.4p 0.8 0.8 2.9
1850 1.0* 25f 2ok 507 1.1’ 0.8’ 6.0 $
1860 318 674 0.1” 2.5 1.2” 11.1 ij
1870 6’ 34h 14’ 1189 0.3 2.8 1.3 14.3 T
1880 67‘ 50’ 49“ 1918 2.1 2.7 1.8 18.6 F
1890 186d 45 157’ 2097 4.8 2.3 2.2 17.1 r
1900 242 36 77 2304” 6.1 2.0 1.2 21.9
1910 163 35 133 2128” 6.7 3.6 3.0 35.9” 2
1920 45d 48’ 164’ 1684” 1.74 4.0” 3.3” 29.1”’ 8
?
Note. . . indicates item was less than 0.05.
Abbreviations. SA, Statistical Abstract of British India; SP, Sessional Papers of the British Parliament; HLJ, House of Lords Journal.
a Said to have ceased by the 178Os, see Rostow (1975, p. 213), Mann (1968, p. 20), and Parshad (1932, p. 93).
b 1831-1859, Mann (1968, p. 129) (imports into England, most of which were re-exported).
’ 1870-1889, SP, various years. d 1890-1930, SA, various years. ’ 1824-1825, HLJ (1830, p. 1392).
f 1827-1858, Mann (1968, p. 118). B 1860, Ellison (1968, p. 118). ’ 1870-1879, Ray (1934, p. 64). ’ 1880-1929, SA, various years.
j Table 3. There was, presumably, a considerable change in the quality of these products between 1790 and 1830.
A 1840-1859, Mann (1968, p. 117). Data shown are Mann’s pound totals multiplied by 4.
’ 1890-1929, SA, various years. m Govil (1950, p. 12). ’ 1815-1909, Sandberg (1974, Table 5). 0 1910-1929, SA, various years.
p 1833-1849, SP 1852-1853 XCIX, 13. ’ 1867-1929, SA, various years. r 1820-1859, Mann (1968, p. 115).
’ 1866-1929, Mann (1968, p. 115). ’ Table 3. ’ 1867-1929, SA, various years. ” 1815-1909, Sandberg (1974, Table 5).
w’ 1910-1929, SA, various years.
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 41

TABLE 2
Production and Trade, 1780-1830

1 2 3 4 5 6
Implied
England’s England’s English English
imports of re-exports consumption exports
Decade India’s total textiles of Asian Asian English of
beginning cloth exports from Asia textiles textiles production COttonS

1780 1,344 394 950 5,400 766

1790 (2430) 1;687 1,142 545 10,QOO 3,380
1800 2,251 827 777 50 18.900 15,871
1810 976 515 432 83 29,200 18.742
1820 1,224 363 429 -66 33,100 16,879
1830 902 347 406 -59 45,600 22,398

Note. All
data in thousand f. Data may refer to subperiods of indicated decades.
Sources. Column 1 from Table 3. Columns 2 and 3 from the Appendixes of Davis (1979).
Column 4 = column 2 - column 3. Columns 5 and 6 from Deane and Cole (1967). It is
clear from Table 3 that columns 2-4 are predominantly Indian cotton piece goods, as
opposed to silk and/or Chinese products.

4, we shall conjecture a reduction by two-thirds of “real” Indian textile

exports between 1790 and 1830. The tentative nature of this estimate is
clear, but it shall turn out that it establishes an order of magnitude with
sufficient precision for later comparisons.
Our suggested chronology of the Indian experience during the extended
19th century basically utilizes the period 1830-1850 to separate the period
of declining Indian exports from that of declining handicraft production,
which we argue is a post-1850 phenomenon. This position is based on
comparisons of known imports with our own estimates of production in
1850 and the period after 1880.
The reports of various governmental boards of inquiry present a reliable
overview’ of the mill industry after 1900, with limited data reaching back
to 1879; we have presented this in Table 5, along with our estimates of
hand spinning. The major gap in our sources is any information about
the evolution of hand spinning. What appears to be the most thorough
analysis of the subject places the volume of hand spinning of yarn at
about 60 million pounds in 193 1,9 while another source indicates that it

a There has been considerable discussion on the fine points of the appropriate methodology
of constructing these tables, specifically, the conversion factor relating pounds of machine
spun yarn to yards of machine woven cloth (Mehta, 1954, Chap. 4). Neither wishing nor
qualified to enter this debate, we have chosen to follow the Tariff Board’s methodology
in constructing the early parts of Table 5.
9 Desai (1953, p. 77). Gandhi (1930, p. 72) gives similar estimates for that period.
 TABLE 3
Textile Exports of India and China, 1790-1850 (Annual Averages per Decade)
R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Re-exports of cotton piece
Total cotton piece good exports Total cotton piece good exports to United Kingdom goods

India Bengal India Bengal United Kingdom

Q V Q V Q V Q V Q V
1790 (4,500) (24,300)d 13,964j 2,200 21,246y* 787” 6,445j 1,325” 11,420
1800 22,515’ 15,60gk 1,824”’ 17,207”* 1,331” 12,610”* 1,717” 7,770
1810 9,760f 11,050’ 1,358 11,185’* 1,038” 4,320 z
1820 12,240f 5,230’ 431” 6005”* 458” 4,290 ij
1830 (3,OOO)b 9,022” 478’ 825’ 271” 11539” 6’ 27’ 4,060 $
1840 2,606’ 8,094” 304p 632” 232p 4,500 F
1850 2,279 8,25gh 5,320” L,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2
Re-exports
2
of silk Cloth piece good Silk piece good
Total exports of silk piece exports to United exports to United 2
pie& goods Silk piece good exports to United Kingdom goods Kingdom Kingdom

United
Bengal India Bengal Kingdom China China

Q V Q V Q V Q Q V Q V

1790 260hh
1800 676hh
1810 112’” 544yy 1,435gg 13*x 340=
1820 4ow 2,38V 151”” 2,380”” 123y 1,067y 92” 3O2yy 604#‘: 26- 334*g
1830 665” 4,119” 319”” 311” 2,149dd 323”
 Notes. Quantities (Q) are thousand pieces: values (V) are thousand rupees.
An asterisk (*) indicates that the item is sale price in the United Kingdom which is almost double invoice price in India.
Parentheses ( ) indicate that the item was estimated by the author. Data originally appearing in & converted to rupees by multiplying by 10.
Different valuations of the separate rupees are ignored.
Abbreviations. SA, Statistical Abstract of British India; HLJ, Nouse of Lords Journal; SP, Sessional Papers of the British Parliament. Format
of references follow source’s format.
a Estimated on the basis of Robson (1957, p. 1). Quantity to United Kingdom agrees with Milburn (1813), with SF 1812-1813 VII 475, and
MacGregor {1850, pp. 413 and 418).
b Estimated by dividing 1830 value by implicit price for 1840.
’ 1840-18.57, Mann (1968, p. 117).
’ Estimated multiplying quantity by an average price (of Bengal exports to U.K.) as calculated from Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, pp. 222 and 228), E
for the period 1797-1800.
F
@1805, Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, p, 153). This total may include some intra-Indian trade, and may omit the value ofthe EICs trade with the United
Kingdom, each of which totaled around 6 million rupees. 3
I 1814-1815, 1828-1829, Chaudhuri (1971, pp. 25-26). The 1814-1815 figure is based on Prinsep’s estimates, and would appear to be low. Both
include silk piece goods. 2
8 1833-1850, SF 1852-1853 XCIX 13: Yarn accounts for about 5% of the total.
52
A 1851-1857, SA, Vol. 5, p. 43. Converted from f.
' 1830-1838, SP 1840 VII 490. ‘\ 8
j 1795-1800, Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, p. 117). May include silk piece goods. The sale value in England was 11,753 (Milburn, 1813, Vol. 2, pp. F
178, 179). z
k Sum of averages for private trade and company trade. Private trade from Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, p. 222), for 1800-1805; company trade from
2
Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, p. 235), multiplied by (q,55 to convert to India invoice valu,.c See Chaudhuri (1978, Chap. 12) for evidence of even higher
mark-ups previously.
8
’ 1812-1832, Mitraf1978, p. 186), after Treve‘\ yan. Agrees with MacGregor (1850, p. 412).
E!
m 1800-1809, SP 1812-1813 VIII 475, may include silk piece goods.
’ 1810-1811, SP 1812-1813 VIII 475; 1814-18 9, SP 1820 V 419. May include silk piece goods, Agrees with MacGregor (1850, p. 412).
o 1828-1838, SP 1840 X-XXVII 245. 1:
p 1845-1846 SP 1847-1848 LXII 16. Value figures are 40% higher than those given in SP 1852-1853 XLIX 13 for correxponding years.
4 1790-1809, Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, pp. 234 an’ 235). Evaluated at sale price in United Kingdom and converted from f. Totals are about 40%
higher than those given in Davis’s (1979) appendix s, which include China trade. Milburn’s data is consistent with SP 1847-1848 LXI 127.
r 1810-1829, HLJ 1830, pp. 1386-1387. Evaluate “t, at sale price in IJnited Kingdom, which is about 40% higher than corresponding totals in
Davis’s (1979) appendixes, which also include China trade.
' 1797-1806, Milbtirn (1813, Vol. 2, p. 2221, Value term is sale value in United Kingdoms which is almost double invoice price in India. t-5
’ 1833-1839, SP i840 489.
u 1823-1825, Tripathi (1956, p. 202). Consistent witb SP 1831 VI 149, and SP 1847-1848 LXI 127.
 TABLE 3-Continued

” 1792-1809, SP 1812-1813 VIII 475. May include column 17.

‘” 1818-1819, .SP 1820 VI 419. May include column 17.
x 1793-1858, Davis (1979) appendixes. Middle three years of decades; converted from f.
y 1827-1829, HL.7, 1830, p. 1394.
’ 1828-1838, SP 1840 VIII 490. Between 10 and 20% was sent to other parts of India, although some of this was eventually exported.
” 1814-1828, HLJ, 1830, p. 1394. F
““1828-1838, SP 1840 XXXVII 245. Consistent with SP 1840 XXXVII 245. P
bb1842-1846, SP 1847 LIX 335. ?
cc 1825-1828, HLJ, 1830, p. 1401. Values originally in f. Item is sale value in United Kingdom, not value in India.
dd 1830-1838, SP 1840 VIII 489. 3
ee 1829, SP 1829 XXII 107. Re-exports were 55% of imports. i2
f f 1836-1837, SP 1837-1838 XLV 477. Re-exports were about two-thirds of imports. z
gg 1811-1828, HLJ, 1830, p. 1270. Values originally in f. Consistent with SP 1820 VI 419 and SP 1847-1848 LX1 127.
hh 1793-1809, SP 1847-1848 LX1 127. In 1817 to 1819 about 70% of nankeens were re-exported, in 1829 20% were re-exported. 1802-1808
consistent with Milburn (1813, Vol. 2, p. 514). Chao (1977, p. 82) gives value data for world export equivalent to over double that presented
here. Nankeen cloth exports were nil from 1834 to 1866.
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 45

TABLE 4
Price Indices in Britain, 1800-1872 (181.5-1816 = 100)

Cloth Yarn
General Other + raw f
Cloth Yarn exports Cotton cotton cotton
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1800 131 114 (153) (108) (84) 128

1815-1816 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1828-1830 85 72 45 38 60 29 142 126
1843-1845 73 70 24 29 49 22 101
1870-1872 76 24 4.5 50 40 57

Sources. Column 1 is the Gayer-Rostow index, column 2 is the Rousseau index, both
from Deane and Cole (1967). Columns 3-7 are from Imlah (1958, Tables II and IV). The
cloth price for 1800 is the ratio of calculated average prices at the EICs sales in London
of imported Indian piece goods, from MacGregor (1850, pp. 412, 413, and 418). The rest
of column 3 is consistent with Sandberg (1974, pp. 239-240). Column 8 and the first entries
in columns 4 and 6 (which refer to 1803-1805) are from MacGregor (1850, pp. 806-807).
The average count of the yarn referred to is 25, which is rather coarse. Utilizing Ellison
(1968, p. 55) and MacGregor (1850, p. 807), price indices for “40s” would be 1779, 488;
1799, 299; 1830, 37 (1815-1816 = 100). Pre-1815 prices for higher count yarns were even
higher.

was the equivalent of 2.5 million pounds in the 1950s. lo We have inserted
in columns 11 and 12 of Table 5 time series on hand spinning, which,
although based on very fragmentary evidence,” do allow a more complete
vision of the whole Indian textile sector by indicating limits on the relative
orders of magnitude of hand spinning inside it. For the early years,

” Robson (19.57, p. 19). It is possible that handicraft spinning had reached its Iaw after
1880 but before 1930, from which it rebounded due to the economic and political factors
mentioned in the text. This possibility would not alter our main conclusions.
Ii Factors include trends in mill consumption and exports of raw cotton, and the production
estimates as reported by the International Institute of Agriculture, together with yield data
from Harnetty (1972, p. 94) and Heston (1973) and the regional production estimates of
Hametty (1972, p. 54) and McAlpin (1975, p. 666). One other major consideration is the
estimate cited by Mann (1968, p. 64) of Indian consumption of cotton at 2; pounds per
person. This is comparable to estimates made for other pre-industrial cotton growing
societies. For China, see Feuerwerker (1970) and Chao (1977). For Japan see the production
data in Okhawa et al. (1966, p, 178), and imports from Seki (1956, pp. 302-303). Based
on these and other sources, the author has estimated production and consumption for the
1870-1930 period for both countries; in 1870, per capita consumption of cotton in China
was 3 pounds per year, and 2.6 pounds in Japan. See also Ellison (1968, p. 144). Tables
are available on request. In contrast, average English consumption in 1850 was 75 lb, up
from about .$lb in 1773. Compare Deane and Cole (1967. pp. 8, 144, and 145) with Robson
(1957, Appendix Table 1).
For the conversion of hand woven textiles, we have followed the Indian Tariff Board
(India, 1927), Utley (1931, p. 286), Wadsworth and Mann (1931, p. 120). and Gandhi !1930.
p. 8.5) in using 4 yards of cloth per pound of cotton.
 TABLE 5
Indian Textiles, 1880-1930
Cloth from hand spun
Machine-spun yarn (m. lb) Cloth from machine-spun yarn (m. yd) yarn Approximate totals

Imports Domestic production Assumed

Raw cotton. net of hand spun Cloth Total Indian Total Indian
Mill Domestic PR- Domestic Imports net Domestic yarn equivalent production consumption
Year consumption production exports Exports consumption By machine By hand of reexports Exports consumption (m. lb) (m. yd) Cm.yd) Cm. yd)

1880-1884 162 151 42 43 150 238 400 1766 36 2368 150 600 1200 3000 z
1885-1889 323 261 49 90 220 344 600 1972 60 2856 140 560 1500 3400 F;
1890-1894 476 381 45 162 264 429 680 2018 171 2956 130 520 1600 3500
F
1895-1899 574 463 49 209 303 477 812 1968 145 3107 120 480 1700 3600
1900- 1904 665 532 28 234 325 545 846 1992 120 3263 110 440 1800 3700 F
1905-1909 787 652 35 251 436 801 1070 2174 119 3926 100 400 2200 4300 F
1910-1914 807 652 35 183 503 1140 1045 2528 123 4594 90 360 2500 5000
1915-1919 821 663 22 142 543 1545 858 1397 3574 2
226 80 320 2700 3900
1920-1924 832 679 48 67 661 1742 1188 1387 195 4142 70 280 3200 4400
1925-1929 857 774 48 45 777 2176 1481 1807 164 5300 60 240 3700 5500 i2
cc

Sources. The series for cloth from hand spun are the author’s estimates, as described in the text. For 1899-1929, all other series are from the
Indian Tariff Board (India, 1927). Appendixes III and IV. For 1925-1929, sources are Indian Skzrisrical Abstract, and Utley (1931, p. 286). For
1880-1899, raw cotton consumption in mills is given by the Indian Tariff Board (India, 1927), Appendix II, combined with Pearse (1930) for 1880-
1884. The domestic production of machine spun yarn is estimated to be the same average fraction of mill consumption of raw cotton before 1900
as it is stated (implicitly) to be for the post-1900 period. All data on traded yarn or cloth for the pre-1900 period is from the Indian Statistical
Absfract, various years. The separation of machine spun yarn into hand woven and machine woven is assumed to follow the ratio of machine
looms to machine spindles for the pre-1900 period. The conversion ratio for yards of cloth from pounds of machine spun yarn is assumed to be
4.7 in mills, 4.0 in hand weaving.
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 7

changes of 50 million pounds in our estimate of hand spinning, or by

33%, would alter our total consumption figure by about 7%, and our
total production estimate by 16%.
During the period 1880-1914, there was a broadly continuous growth
in Indian machine production of cloth. Hand weaving appears to have
grown,” in spite of the large decline we assume for hand spinning. Note
also that more machine spun yarn was consumed by hand weaving than
by machine looms up until the 1910s over half a century after the mill
industry became established. Furthermore, between 1880 and 1913 the
growth of imports was equaled by the growth of mill production of cloth.
Cloth imports peaked in 1913, and declined markedly during World War
I. They were not able to recover their market after the war for two
reasons: the imposition of protective tariffs in India, and the nationalist
Swadeshi movement. Factory production of cloth, having surpassed both
hand weaving and imports during the war, continued to rise thereafter,
and India finally re-established herself as a net exporter of cotton textiles
in the 1940s. Our estimates of per capita consumption”3 are 11 yards in
1880, 15 yards in 1913, and 17 yards in 1930. Per capita imports were 1
yard in 1840, 7 yards in 1880,‘4 8 yards before World War I, and 5 ya
I2 The future of hand weaving continued to be an important issue after World War II:
see Mehta (1954, Chap. 4).
” All estimates of Indian population in the text are interpolated from McEvedy and
Jones (1978), who suggest the following totals: 1800, 190 million; 1850, 230 million; 1900,
290 million; 1925, 330 million. In contrast, Morris (1974) suggested 197, 237, 285, and 315
million, respectively. There has been a tendency to raise the estimated population for 1800;
Morris ef nl. earlier (1969, p. 149) had cited a “commonly accepted estimate” of 100 to
125 million for 1800.
I4 Hunter (1886, p. 600) stated that “it may be roughly estimated that about three fifths
of the cotton cloth used is woven in the country from native thread or from imported
twist.” Parnie (1979, p. 119) cites this passage in his discussion of the mutual importance
of the Indian market and British production. Our corresponding estimate is only two-fifths.
Hunter’s fraction, combined with well-measured import totals and fairly reliable estimates
of machine spun yam, implies a volume of 500 million pounds of hand spun yarn. This
would raise the per capita consumption figure to I7 yards of cloth, or over 4 pounds of
cotton, which seems too high. Given Hunter’s general authority, the discrepancy is puzzling.
As we shall argue below, acceptance of the 17 yards per capita consumption figure for
the early 1880s would not invalidate our conclusion that a rise in per capita imports from
1 yard in 1850 to 7 yards in 1880 severely hurt handicraft activities (in the face of a small
rise in per capita income), but it would be difficult to explain the implicit vertiginous drop
in hand spinning between 1880 and 1930, and a near stagnation of overall consumption in
spite of a 25% increase in population and a 20% increase in per capita income (according
to both Muketji and Heston). Unfortunately, reliable statistics on the production of raw
cotton, from which one could deduce handicraft production by subtracting exports and
mill consumption, are not available.
We might also note here that the use by Wright (1974) of Indian exports to the United
Kingdom as a proxy for total Indian exports of raw cotton seriously underestimates the
latter. In 1880 the United Kingdom only received about one-fifth of total Indian cotton
exports, according to the Indian Statistical Abstract. Hanson’s (1979) critique of Wright’s
argument also ignored developments in Asian textile trade.
48 MICHAEL J. TWOMEY

in 1930. By 1929, the respective shares of total Indian cloth consumption

were Indian mills, 38%, imports 32%, hand weaving using mill yarn,
26%, and hand weaving using hand spun yarn, 4%.
Although it is not a central focus of our paper, a few comments on
the factors affecting the growth of industrial production are perhaps
appropriate. The opening of the Suez canal lowered external transport
costs considerably, while the expansion of railroads lowered internal
costs (McAlpin, 1975), increasing the supply of cotton and expanding
the domestic market for piece goods. Table 6 supports our conjecture
that raw cotton in India was relatively cheaper before the cotton famine,
giving effective protection to the fledgling industry. Note also in Table
6 that the relative price of yarn and cloth, compared to the overall price
index, fell by almost half between 1873 and 1900, in spite of a fall of
the Indian rupee with respect to the British pound.lS Finally, there is a
reversal of the trend in the relative prices of cotton and cloth after the
start of World War I, which continued after the wartim.e scarcities were
over. This may be a reflection of the postwar tariffs in India.
Earlier we suggested a five-part periodization of the Indian textile
experience. We shall now argue that the most severe employment effects
of the so-called de-industrialization occurred during the first and third
of these stages, with the third having the greatest impact.
In 1790, production for export was not large compared to home con-
sumption in India. Robson (1957) puts total annual exports at 50 million
yards during the 1790s; assuming a population of 190 million and con-
sumption at 9 yards per capital6 would imply that exports were less than
3% of total production, by volume. Even if the average labor intensity
of exports was three times that of domestically oriented production,
exports would have accounted for less than 10% of the total labor input
in textiles.
Our analysis of employment shall calculate for various periods the
equivalent number of full time job equivalents (FTJEs) involved in pro-
duction. It is clear that spinning has more frequently been a part time
activity, and we shall separate spinning from weaving later on, but, in
our opinion, treatment of the full employment impact of textiles should
incorporate both groups. We can utilize data presented in Prakesh (1974)
to estimate that the total employment in 1790 was between 400,000 and
500,000 FTJEs.‘~ The reader will recall that, on the basis of the discussion

I5 This supports Ryan’s (1981) criticism of Nugent (1973) that it was factors other than
the rupee devaluation which spurred, in this case, exports of Indian yarn.
I6 The per capita consumption figure is that of 1850, which is, as noted, somewhat
smaller than our estimates for 1880 and afterward. The main defense of this assumption
is convenience; it would have to be two or three times larger for exports to have been
significant in overall production, and this is clearly unrealistic.
I7 Using data from a variety of sources, Prakesh estimated that the production (for
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 49

TABLE 6
Prices in India, 18.50-1930 (1873 = 100)

Year CPI Yarn Cloth Raw cotton

1850 75 (8% (48)

1862 93 (133) 182)
I873 100 100 100 100
1879-1881 105 80 79 90
1889-1891 111 74 77 91
1899-1901 124 61 78 77
1909-1911 144 88 94 119
1919-1921 326 251 286 201
1929-1931 199 110 139 110

Sources. CPI data from Singh (1965, p. 685). 1850 data is source’s statistic for 1857.
Yarn, cloth, and raw cotton prices for 1873 and afterward from Indian Statistical Abstract,
various years, representing rupee prices of standard types of exported yarn and imported
clath. Earlier cloth prices from Sandberg (1974, p. 24). Earlier raw cotton prices calculated
from data in Mann (1968, pp. 130 and 132), Harnetty (1972, p. 56), and the Indian Stntisrical
Abstract, which gives only values. This may overstate the increase in prices. According
to Ellison (1968, Table I), the price of “Dhol. Fair” rose only 16% between 1850 and
1873, and it is difficult-but not impossible-to attribute the resultant differential to a
lowering of transport costs.

relating to Tables 3 and 4, we estimate the decline between 1790 and

1830 of “real” exports, and hence of export related employment, at two-
thirds of the total, let us say 300,000 FTJEs, or about 0.2% of the
population. This drop was not evenly distributed in the economy, however.
The data in Table 3 show that the value of Calcutta’s exports fell from
14 to 1 million rupees, or by 95%, while that of the rest of the subcontinent
declined from 11 to 8 million rupees, or by only 30%. Applying these
ratios to the total employment drop yields a deciine in Bengal of 244,000,‘8
and for the rest of India a drop of 56,000 FTJEs. Eengal’s exports of
silk textiles did increase, but might have absorbed only 10,000 weavers,
and few others, as silk preparation is much less labor intensive than
cotton. Referring to the data in Table 1, we estimate that the increase
in imported yarn might have given employment to 20,000 weavers (and,
of course, to no spinners).”

export) of 577,690 pieces, equivalent to 9.6 million square yards, would have involved
between 75,620 and 99,804 FTJEs, as follows: 5-6 warkers per loom (including 1.5-2
weavers). and an annual production per loom of 36 pieces, totaling 640 square yards per
year, at 17 square yards per piece. This works out to around 12.5 yards per person per
year, or 8 FTJE per 1000 yards. Morris’s reading of the productivity data in Morris, et al. (I969,
p. 128) together with Robson’s (1957, p. 1) export figure imply a total employment of 550.000
FTJEs.
‘* This is much lower than Sinha’s (1970, p. 8) figure of one million in Bengal alone.
” This is not as positive a picture as that described by Kumar (1972, pp. 76-77), and
weakens one of the bases of Morris’s argument cited earlier.
50 MICHAEL J. TWOMEY

These calculations highlight the regional impact of the decline in Indian

textile exports. For the country as a whole, the drop was certainly
significant-perhaps totaling two-thirds-but not a large fraction of the
total production.20 Exports from the Bengal presidency and to Great
Britain were the two parts of the trade that were hardest hit. As Bengal
was the seat of the East India Company and British rule, it is natural
that reports originating there effectively exaggerated the overall impact
on the country. An example is the phrase originally appearing in the
British Governor General’s report of 1834-1835, and later made famous
by Marx, “the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of
India.“*’ In addition to its reflection of a regional bias, the observation
effectively ignores the fact that weavers were but a third of those involved
in handicraft production, and that they did have some limited access to
alternative employment, weaving silk and imported cotton yarn. That
English commentators most frequently referred to the lot of weavers,
not spinners or other textile workers, reflects the fact that they had
greater contact with weavers, who in turn subcontracted with spinners
and others. We should not forget that even before 1770 foreigners had
often commented on the poverty-stricken lot of weavers, for which neither
foreign competition nor famine can be blamed.22
As noted above, imports of cloth amounted to about 1 yard per person
by 1850, which might have been 10% of Indian production. We now turn
to the post-1850 period, when Indian production fell to less than 40% of
Indian consumption, the rest being supplied by Lancashire.
Facile discussion of the “de-industrialization of India” can too easily
overlook the fact that India ranked fourth worldwide in mill consumption
of cotton in 1913 (behind the U.K., U.S. and Germany).23 Moreover,
mechanized production of yarn and cloth both grew by larger amounts
than their corresponding imported totals after 1880. Therefore,any sig-
nificant “de-industrialization” solely attributable to British exports would
have occurred before that date. So we shall concentrate on the years
1850-1880, when cloth imports increased by 1500 million yards, or 6
yards per person, compared to our estimated total consumption of about
11 yards per capita.
The data presented earlier permit the calculation of the degree to which
these imports replaced handicraft production, as contrasted to merely
supplying expanding demand due to income and population growth, as
*’ Contrast Sander-son (1951, p. 146): “[by 18501 this entire Indian export of cotton goods
has been destroyed by the tariff policies of the British government,” which is incorrect
both in magnitude and causality.
*’ See the discussion in Sandberg (1974, p. 166) and Morris ei al. (1969, p. 165, ftn.
152). Feuerwerker (1970, p. 338) offers a similar quotation from Marx regarding China.
” See Chaudhuri (1978, p. 268). The decline of the Mughal empire should also account
for a previous drop of specialty weaving, see Ghosal (1966, p. 21).
23 Robson (1957, p. 19). Because of the pervasiveness of handweaving the ranking in
terms of machine made cloth might have been lower.
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 51

was suggested by Morris. The basic procedure is to estimate total con-

sumption in 1850, from which artisan production is derived by subtracting
imports. This involves assuming imported and handicraft textiles are
comparable on a volume basis (weight or length), but is incapable of
distinguishing between shifts of and movements along a hypothetical
supply curve for handicrafts. Such an analysis would involve consideration
of changing opportunity costs of handicraft activities, lowered transportation
costs, and a model much too detailed for the available data.24
One early econometric work on the demand for Indian textiles is the
article by Desai (1971), whose import demand functions exhibited high
price elasticities. Unfortunately, only one of those equations used a proxy
for income, and domestic prices of imports were not deflated by an
overall price index. Using somewhat different time series than Desai’s2’
and including those two variables, we present in Table 7 demand functions
for both imports and consumption. The first two equations suggest that
Desai’s results are replicated for our sample. Inclusion of income an
relative prices in Eqs. (3) and (4) lowers the price elasticity considerably.
Table 5 presented estimates of total Indian cotton textile consumption
for the period 1880-1930. When combined with the price and income
data used in Eqs. (l)-(4), this series yields Eq. (5) in Table 7, which
can be projected back in time to yield an estimate of total Indian con-
sumption in 1850of 2130million, yards, or 9 yards per capita. Our estimates
of post-1800 production and consumption are shown in Fig. 1.
For the conversion of cloth production to employment figures, we shall
use the 20th-century data cited by Prakesh (1974); a fulltime weaver
would produce 1000square yards per year, and need two or three spinners
to produce the yarn, or approximately 3.5 FT.IE/lOOO linear yards of
cloth.“6 On the basis of the calculations in Table 8,” this suggests an

24 One important factor causing a shift would be the changing relative price of raw cotton
and cloth, as shown in Table 6, which, ceteris paribus, would shift handicraft supply to
the left. Lacking Indian handicraft production data, we cannot pursue this. For a discussion
of studies applied to the United States and the world market which touch on these issues,
see Rostow (1975, pp. 740-745).
25 Price data from the Indian Statistical Abstract, after 1873. Earlier data on the CPI
from Singh (1965, p. 685) and, for cloth, Sandberg’s series of prices in England (1974, p.
249). The per capita income estimates are M. Mukeji’s, reported in Singh (1965, p. 689).
26 Prakesh (1974), footnoes 35-37. In aggregate, these coefficients are comparable to
those used for China by Feuerwerker (1970). Also, one report claimed that the productivity
in the ,pre-industrial England of 1720 was 140 yards per person, Wadsworth and Mann
(1931, p, 120). The high ratio of spinners to weavers may indicate the etymological origin
of the word spinster. Comparison with our data in footnote 17 shows that we ,are implicitly
treating post-1850 handicraft production as half as labor intensive as earlier production for
exports. Furthermore, we are ignoring late 19th century improvements in weaving as being
of secondary order of magnitude compared to our other approximations.
” The reader will notice that the calculations in Table 8 for 1850 ignore the employment
effects of exported handicraft cloth, which cannot have been significant compared to the
totals.
52 MICHAEL J. TWOMEY

TABLE 7
Regression Results”

R2 Period

(1) Imports = 23.0 - 3.71 Pcloth 0.67 1815-1913

(17.0) (12.9)
(2) Imports = - 12.5 - 0.69 Pcloth + 2.11 Income 0.90 1857-1900
(3.78) (5.15) (8.05)
(3) Imports = 9.27 - 1.22 Pcloth/CPI 0.77 1857-1900
(49.7) (11.7)
(4) Imports = - 13.21 - 0.62 Pcloth/CPI + 1.98 Income 0.92 1857-1900
(4.94) (6.49) (8.43)
(5) Consumption = -0.19 - 0.30 PclothKPI + 0.80 Income 0.54 1880-1930
(0.15) (2.79) (7.09)

a All variables in logarithms. 1 Statistics in parentheses. Pcloth, price of cloth; CPI,

average price level in India. For sources, see text.

absolute fall in Indian textile employment for 1850 to 1880 of 3.6 million
FTJEs, or almost 14% of the 1850 population of 250 million.28 This
estimate is subject to many errors, particularly the estimate of hand spun
yarn in Table 5, the assumed growth of population and per capita income,
and the coefficient relating cloth production to FTJEs, so that a range
of 2 to 6 million FTJEs might be more realistic.29 Some preliminary re-
estimates of Eq. (5) indicated that the calculated change in cloth con-
sumption over the 1850-1880 period was not overly sensitive to increases
of even 200% in estimated hand spinning in 1880, due to its small part
of total consumption in 1880, as well as the resultant change in the income
elasticity in Eq. (5). Similarly, our productivity data are rather crude:
and potentially capable of considerable refinement with a more thorough
search of the relevent specialized literature.
We have identified as distinct phases of Indian textile history the period
of the decline of the export market, the decline of handicraft production,
and the rise of domestic industry. Some employment effects of the first
two phases have been estimated. Now we shall turn to the broader issue
28 This is twice the absolute number estimated by Feuerwerker (1970) as the employment
loss in China due to imports during 1870 to 1910. As a fraction of the total population,
the difference would be four times larger. Ironically, China’s foreign competition was not
British piece goods but yarn from India and, later, Japan.
*9 Unpublished results generously made available to the author by Alan Heston suggest
a smaller, though still positive, growth of per capita income during the period 1868-18821
1883. For a given hypothesized growth of population, the assumption of a smaller increase
of per capita income over 1850 to 1880 would raise the estimated level of consumption
(and hence production) in 1850, leading to an increase in our estimated FTJE loss due to
imports.
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 53

1000 - Total domestic production

...-...- Net exports
..... .... Factory production
800 ---- Hand spun
---- Total domestic consumption

600

6000

5000
- Total production
-.-.- Imports
.......... Machine woven
4000 ---- Hand woven

0
1800 1850 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930

FIG. 1. Cotton goods in India, 1800-1930. (A) Yarn, million pounds: (B) cloth, million
yards. The two graphs are constructed on the same scale: 4 yd of cloth = 1 lb of yam.

as raised by Morris; that of an absolute decline in handicrafts (and/or

hand weaving) over the whole century. Judgments on this matter depend
heavily on the population data utilized, about which estimates show even
more variance than those of per capita income levels. Morris’s basic
point about the importance of population growth counteracting the decline
of the export market is clearly justified by our calculations in Table 9,
for the period 1800-1850. In the second half of the century, however,
the main factor sustaining hand weaving was the growth of the country’s
54 MICHAEL J. TWOMEY

TABLE 8
Cotton Textile Handicraft Employment, 1850, 1880

1850 Estimated consumption 2,100 m. yd

-cloth imports - 300
Estimated production 1,800 m. yd
-cloth equivalent of imported yam -100 m. yd
Handicraft production of cloth from hand
spun yarn 1,700 m. yd
Estimated employment, @ 3.5 FTJEiIOOO yd (hand spun) = 5,950,OOO FTJEs
Estimated employment, @ 1.0 FTJEilOOO yd (machine
spun) = +100,000
Total estimated employment, 1850 = 6,050,OOO
1880 Estimated hand woven from hand spun yarn 600 m. yd
Estimated hand woven from machine spun yam 400 m. yd
Estimated employment, @ 3.5 FTJEilOOO yd (hand spun) = 2,100,OOO FTJEs
Estimated employment, @ 1.0 FTJEDOOO yd (machine
spun) = +400,000
Total estimated employment, 1880 2,500,OOO
Estimated decline, 1850-1880 3,550,OOO FTJEs

TABLE 9
Summary Estimates of Indian Handicraft Textile Employment, 1800-1929

Weavers
Using hand spun Using machine Total only
yam spun yarn (million FTJEs)

1800 High estimate 1810 x 3.5 + 0 z.z 6.3

1810 x 1.0 + 0 = 1.8
Low estimate 1090 x 3.5 + 0 = 3.9
1090x1.0 + 0 = 1.1
1850 1700 x 3.5 + 100 x 1.0 = 6.0
1700x1.0 + 100 x 1.0 1.8
1880 600 x 3.5 + 400x1.0 = 2.5
600x1.0 + 400x1.0 = 1.0
1913 360 x 3.5 + 1140 x 1.0 = 2.4
360x1.0 + 1140 x 1.0 1.5
1929 240 x 3.5 + 1480 x 1.0 = 2.3
240x1.0 + 1480x1.0 = 1.7

Nore. The estimates for 1800 assume population are 190 and 110 million, respectively,
a per capita cloth consumption of 9 yd, and that exported cloth is twice as labor intensive
as ordinary cloth. 1800 exports from Robson (1957, p. 1). 1850 and 1880 production totals
from Table 6; 1913 and 1929 totals from Table 5.
The calculations convert cloth quantities to estimated employment on the basis of 3.5
FTJE/lOOO yd (total), and 1.0 FTJEilOOO yd (weavers).
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 55

spi,nning mills,3oand hand spinning itself probably declined considerably.

Our conclusion is that total handicraft textile employment fell absolutely
over the entire century, and that weaving declined down to 1880. Whether
it is more appropriate to look at total handicraft activity or only weaving,
and whether the kind of hand weaving that grew up with the mills should
be compared with the “traditional” activity are two questions that our
analysis is not designed to answer.
This paper has only treated one aspect of the de-~dust~~~zation debate.
A recent summary of the many issues under discussion is Robb (1981).
A fuller evaluation of the quantitative arguments presented here WQ~~~
need an appreciation of the alternatives available to displaced handic
workers. on which much work still needs to be done.3’
REFERENCES
Arasaratnam, S. (1980), “Merchants and the Company: The Handloom Indust.ry in South-
eastern India 1750-1790.” Indian Economic and Social History Review 17, 257-282.
Bagchi, A. K. (1976) “De-industrialization in India in the Nineteenth Century: Some
Theoretical Implications.” Journal of Development Studies 17, 135-164.
Baran, P. A. (1957), The Political Economy of Growth, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Chao, K. (1977) The Development of Cotton Textile Production in China, Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1966), “India’s Foreign Trade and The Cessation of the East India
Company’s Trading Activities, 1828-40.” Economic History Review 19, 344-363.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1968), “India’s International Economy in the Nineteenth ‘Century: An
Historical Survey.” Modern Asian Studies 2, 31-50.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1971), The Economic Development of India Under the East India
Company, 1814-58, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1974), “The Structure of Indian Textile Industry in the Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Centuries.” Indian Economic and Social History Review li, 127-182.
Chaudhuri, K. N. (1978), The Trading World of Asia aad the English East India Company
1660-1760, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Davis, R. (1979), The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade, Atlantic ~igblands~
N.J.: Humanities Press.
Deane, P., and Cole, W. A. (1967), British Economic Growth, Cambridge: The University
Press. 2nd ed.
Des& M. (1971), “Demand for Cotton Textiles in Nineteenth Century India.” lndialr
Economic and Social History Review 10, 337-361.
Desai, R. C. (1953), Standard ofLiving in India and Pakistan 1931-32 to 1940-41, Bombay:
Popular Book Depot.
Dewey, C. (1978) “The End of the Imperialism of Free Trade: The Eclipse of the Lancashiie
Lobby and the Concession of Fiscal Autonomy to India.” In C. Dewey and A. 6.

M Once again, we would hypothesize that transport costs inhibited a pre-1870 growth
of Indian handweaving using imported yarn, just as transport costs and tariffs helped
protect English spinners from imported Indian yarn before the mid-18th century spurt of
inventions.
3’ See,! e.g., the July 1975 issue of Explorations in Economic History. According to
official statistics, the employment in Indian textile mills was only 44,000 in 1880, and
350,000 in 1930. The early 19th century experience of Bengal is treated by Gbosal(l966).
For a discussion of some other Asian countries, see Resnick (1970).
56 MICHAEL J. TWOMEY

Hopkins (Eds.), The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and
India. Atlantic Heights, N.J.: Humanities Press.
Dutt, R. (1956), The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul. 8th Impression.
Ellison, T. (1968), The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, New York: A. M. Kelly. New
impression of 1886 edition.
Famie, D. A. (1979), The English Cotton Industry and the World Market, 1815-1896,
Oxford: Oxford Univ. (Clarendon) Press.
Feuerwerker, A. (1970), “Handicraft and Manufactured Cotton Textiles in China, 1871-
1910.” Journal of Economic History 30, 368-378.
Gadgil, D. R. (1971), The Industrial Revolution of India in Recent Times, 1860-1939,
Bombay: Oxford Univ. Press. 5th.ed.
Gandhi, M. P. (1930), The Indian Cotton Textile Industry, Calcutta.
Ganguli, B. N. (1977), Indian Economic Thought, Nineteenth Century Perspectives, New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Ghosal, H. R. (1966), Economic Transition of the Bengal Presidency, Calcutta: Firma K.
L. Mukhopadhyay.
Govil, K. L. (1950), The Cotton Industry ofIndia, Bombay: Hind Kitabs. 2nd ed.
Hanson, J. R. (1979), “World Demand for Cotton during the Nineteenth Century: Wright’s
Estimates Re-examined,” Journal of Economic History 39, 1015-1021.
Hametty, P. (1972), imperialism and Free Trade, Lancaster and India in the Mid-Nineteenth
Century, Manchester: The University Press.
Heston, A. (1973), “Gflicial yields per Acre in India 1886-1947.” Indian Economic and
Social History Review 11, 303-332.
Hunter, W. W. (1886), The Imperial Gazetteer of India, London: Trubner. Vol. VI.
Imlah, A. H. (1958), Economic Elements in the Pax Britannica, New York: Russell and
Russell.
(India) (1927), Report of the Indian Tariff Board, Bombay: Government Central Press.
Institut International D’Agriculture, International Yearbook of Agriculture Statistics, various
years, Rome.
Kumar, D. (1972), “Economic History of Modern India,” Indian Economic and Social
History Review 11, 63-90.
MacGregor, J. (1850), Commerical Statistics, London: Whitaker. Vol. IV, 2nd ed.
Maddison, A. (1971), Class Structure and Economic Growth. India and Pakistan Since
the Moghuls. New York: Norton.
Mann, J. (1968) The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, London: Frank Cass. Reprint of 1860
edition.
McAlpin, M. B. (1975), “Railroads, Prices and Peasant Rationality: India 1860-1900.”
Journal of Economic History 34, 662-684.
McEvedy, C., and Jones, R. (1978), Atlas of World Population History, New York: Facts
on File.
Mehta, S. D. (1953), The Indian Cotton Textile Industry: An Economic Analysis, Bombay:
G. K. Ved.
Mehta, S. D. (1954), The Cotton Mills of India 1854 to 1954, Bombay: G. K. Ved.
Milbum, W. (1813). Oriental Commerce . ,, London: Black, Parry.
Mitra, D. B. (1978), The Cotton Weavers of Bengal, Calcutta: Temple Press,
Morris, M. D. (1963), “Towards a Reinterpretation of Nineteenth Century Indian Economic
History,” Journal of Economic History 23, 606-618.
Morris, M. D., et al. (1969), Indian Economy in the Nineteenth Century: A Symposium.
Delhi: Hindustan Publ.
Morris, M. D. (1974), “The Population of All India 1800-1951.” Indian Economic and
Social History Review 11, 309-313.
 EMPLOYMENT IN INDIAN TEXTILES 57

Nugent, J. B. (1973), “Exchange Rate Movements and Economic Development in the Late
Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Political Economy 81, 1110-l 13.5.
Ohkawa, K., et al. (Ed.) (1966), Estimates of Lung Term Economic Statistics of Japan
Since 1868. Vol. 9. Agriculture and Forestry, Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinposha.
Parshad, I. D. (1932), Some Aspects of Indian Foreign Trade, 1757-1893, London: P. S.
King.
Pearse, A. S. (1930), The Cotton Zndustry of India, London: Taylor Garnett Evans.
Prakesh, 0. (1974) “Bullion for Goods: International Trade and the Economy of Early
Eighteenth Century Bengal.” Indian Economic and Social Histor?, Review 13, 159-
187.
Resnick, S. A. (1970), “The Decline of Rural Industry Under Export Expansion: A Comparison
Among Burma, Phillipines and Thailand, 1870-1938,” Journal of Econonzic ZBstoty
30, 51-73.
Rider, T. D. (1970), “Tariff Policy of the Government of India and Industrial Development
1894-1934." Journal of Economic History 30, 278-280.
Robb, P. (1981) “British Rule and Indian ‘Improvement’.” Economic Z&tory Review 34,
507-523.
Robson, R. (1957), The Cotton Industry in Britain, London: Macmillan.
Rostow, W. W. (1975), How it all Began, the Origins of the Modern Economy, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ryan, J. S. (1981), “Silver and the Indian Economy, 1870-1892.” Paper presented at the
22nd Annual Cliometrics conference.
Sandberg, L. G. (1974), Lancashire in Decline, Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press.
Sanderson, G. D. (19.51) India and British Imperialism, New York: Bookman.
Seki, K. (1956), The Cotton Industry ofJapan, Tokyo: Japanese Society for the Promotion
of Science.
Singh, V. 8. (Ed.) (1965), The Economic History of India, 1857-1956, Bombay: Allied
Publ,
Sinha, N. K. (1970), The Economic History ofBengal. 1793-1848, Calcutta: Firma K. L.
Mukhopadhyay. Vol. III.
Thorner, D. (1962), Land and Labour in India, Bombay: Asia Publ. House.
Tripathi, A. (1956), Trade and Finance in the Bengal Presidency. 1793-1833, Bombay:
Orient Longmans.
Utley, F. (1931), Lancashire and the Far East, London: Allen and Unwin.
Vicziany, M. (1979), “The Deindustrialization of India in the Nineteenth Century: A
Methodological Critique of Amiya Kumar Bagchi.” Zndian Economic and Social History
Review 14, 105-147.
Wadsworth, A. P., and Mann, J. (1931) The Cotton Trade and Industrial Lancashire 1600-
1780, Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press.
Wright, 6. (1974), “Cotton Competition and the Post-Bellurn Recovery of the American
South.” Journal of Economic History 34, 610-635.